I've received some direct messages regarding why I use this in my combat examples. People are pouring over the rules looking for this to be mentioned. This is a practiced shorthand for a lot of us, not deep cited rules lore. Don't like it? Don't use it.
This is not a rule, this is a communication aid. It changes zero outcomes logically. It's great for new people understanding segmented casting times. This is not just useful for the Dungeon Master, but for the players who have a spectrum of system familiarity at the table as well. As someone who has not only taught a lot of AD&D, but ran many tables with a spectrum of AD&D experience, this has worked fantastic in practice for years.
If you remember that a combat round is just 1 minute with 10 segments of 6 seconds each, you can logically see how it works by mapping out a full minute in seconds, then segments. What we refer to is the short cut math for doing a spell in relation to a battery of other actions in combat. I'll demonstrate some of that below.
In short, this takes an abstract segment and places the spell in firm relation to other events within similar timing. There is no granular breakdown of inter-segment resolution in AD&D other that weapon speed considerations and that omits the use of the segment other than it being a tie.
Really, this is such a stupid movement of a <end casting> label and nobody should lose sleep over this. The idea isn't what should happen, but whether everyone understands what does happen.
Breakdown of a round goes like this:
<<<PREVIOUS ROUND (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (2) 7 8 9 10 11 12 (3) 13 14 15 16 17 18 (4) 19 20 21 22 23 24 (5) 25 26 27 28 29 30 (6) 31 32 33 34 35 36 (7) 37 38 39 40 41 42 (8) 43 44 45 46 47 48 (9) 49 50 51 52 53 54 (10) 55 56 57 58 59 60 >>>NEXT ROUND
-1 method (Initiative + Casting time -1):
An initiative of 2 with a stinking cloud counting 12 seconds. (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (2) <start casting> 7 8 9 10 11 12 (3) 13 14 15 16 17 18 <end casting> (4) 19 20 21 22 23 24 (5) and so on to 60.
The standard math method (Initiative + Casting time):
An initiative of 2 with a stinking cloud counting 12 seconds. (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (2) <start casting> 7 8 9 10 11 12 (3) 13 14 15 16 17 18 (4) <end casting> 19 20 21 22 23 24 (5) and so on to 60.
What's the difference?
Either works fine, but consider the following scenarios (note that casting versus melee is handled very specifically in AD&D and is a separate topic):
Zombies are attacking Farmer Fred's homestead! The party goes to rescue farmer friend, a 0 level human, who is fending off a zombie from breaking through his front door. Zombies are everywhere and a melee has broken out. The magic-user is out of lower casting time spells and has to use disintegrate on the zombie before it hit's Fred. Remember that Zombies always attacks at the end of the round. Disintegrate is a 6 segment casting time. The initiative roll for the party comes up 4.
The standard math method (Initiative + Casting time):
<<<PREVIOUS ROUND (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (2) 7 8 9 10 11 12 (3) 13 14 15 16 17 18 (4) <party initiative - start casting> 19 20 21 22 23 24 (5) 25 26 27 28 29 30 (6) 31 32 33 34 35 36 (7) 37 38 39 40 41 42 (8) 43 44 45 46 47 48 (9) 49 50 51 52 53 54 (10) <end casting> 55 56 57 58 59 60 >>>NEXT ROUND
What happened first? Did the zombie crush Farmer Fred? Or did Disintegrate do it's thing? We know that keeping in mind the described method that it happens at the top of the segment. But segment 10 and 10 is confusing to some players (and new DMs).
-1 method (Initiative + Casting time -1):
What happened first? Did the zombie crush Farmer Fred? Or did Disintegrate do it's thing? We know, right away, that the disintegrate happened to the zombie before any attack was made.
The party is ambushed on the roadside by bandits! Two of them are crested on either side of the road by archers who have glistening arrows dripping in some green ichor. The magic user wants to mitigate the possibility of poison arrow quickly, so he declares magic missile. Initiative comes up 1 for the party and 2 for the bandits.
The standard math method (Initiative + Casting time):
<<<PREVIOUS ROUND (1) <party initiative - start casting> 1 2 3 4 5 6 (2) <end casting> 7 8 9 10 11 12 (3) 13 14 15 16 17 18 (4) 19 20 21 22 23 24 (5) 25 26 27 28 29 30 (6) 31 32 33 34 35 36 (7) 37 38 39 40 41 42 (8) 43 44 45 46 47 48 (9) 49 50 51 52 53 54 (10) 55 56 57 58 59 60 >>>NEXT ROUND
The clarification of same segment ordering does tell us that the magic missile happens before the missile fire. But again, segment 2 and 2 can be confusing.
-1 method (Initiative + Casting time -1):
<<<PREVIOUS ROUND (1) <party initiative - start casting> 1 2 3 4 5 6 <end casting> (2) 7 8 9 10 11 12 (3) 13 14 15 16 17 18 (4) 19 20 21 22 23 24 (5) 25 26 27 28 29 30 (6) 31 32 33 34 35 36 (7) 37 38 39 40 41 42 (8) 43 44 45 46 47 48 (9) 49 50 51 52 53 54 (10) 55 56 57 58 59 60 >>>NEXT ROUND
Same result, but we know "Hey Magic missile went off segment 1, so it should blast one of those archers before they fire" and so does the entire table if they've been introduced to the shortcut.
Debating on moving things one second marker forward doesn't change the outcome, only how you shortcut it and refer to it during the dozens of rounds of combat you play in a session. Hopefully this clears things up for people who see the casting time -1 shortcut around the AD&D spaces online.
EDIT:
My friend EOTB posted on this issue in another discord, interesting commentary by Gary. He states that all actions take place at the beginning of a segment, which makes a spell also occurring them real iffy if that is followed.
No comments:
Post a Comment